Re: [ippm] Merging deployment considerations into IPv6 IOAM document

[Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>]

Hi Frank,

I’ve provided some editorial suggestions here:

https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/pull/198 <https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/pull/198>

Also, we should clean up the long author list on this document:

https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/issues/197 <https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/issues/197>

Best,
Tommy

> On Sep 29, 2020, at 11:24 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tommy,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback. Here's the git link:
> https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/blob/master/drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options.xml
> Text version is here: https://github.com/inband-oam/ietf/blob/master/drafts/versions/03/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-03.txt
> 
> Looking forward to your comments.
> 
> Thanks, Frank
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Dienstag, 29. September 2020 20:19
>> To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]; draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-
>> [e-mail]; IPPM Chairs <[e-mail]>; Martin
>> Duke <[e-mail]>; IETF IPPM WG ([e-mail])
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: Merging deployment considerations into IPv6 IOAM document
>> 
>> Hi Frank, all,
>> 
>> Thanks for providing this update. The combined document makes sense and, I
>> believe, will provide a more useful resource to implementors.
>> 
>> Looking through the new text, I had a few textual/editorial nits. Is this available
>> on a GitHub for comments or a PR?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tommy
>> 
>>> On Sep 18, 2020, at 1:56 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Tommy, IPPM WG,
>>> 
>>> we just posted an updated draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-03 which merges
>> draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment into draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
>> ipv6-options plus it reflects the WG discussion of the last IPPM meeting.
>>> 
>>> The updates to draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-03 are
>>> 
>>> * implement the guidance from the WG chairs: Merge in draft-ioametal-ippm-
>> 6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment "as is", i.e. only editorial changes were made (e.g.
>> resolve references which would have been circular).
>>> * implement the result of discussion in the last WG meeting: Removed the
>> paragraph that started with " In order for IOAM to work in IPv6 networks.."
>> which included deployment considerations.
>>> 
>>> Moving forward, we'll need to further evolve the deployment section (now
>> section 4).
>>> There were already comments raised in the IOAM DT wrt/ what is now section
>> 4.4.1 by Haoyu. I asked  Haoyu to take those to the IPPM list.
>>> 
>>> Cheers, Frank
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: Freitag, 14. August 2020 23:12
>>>> To: [e-mail];
>>>> draft-ioametal-ippm-6man- [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: IPPM Chairs <[e-mail]>; Martin Duke
>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>> Subject: Merging deployment considerations into IPv6 IOAM document
>>>> 
>>>> Hi IOAM IPv6 authors,
>>>> 
>>>> At IETF 108, we discussed draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options and
>>>> draft-ioametal- ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment, and how to progress
>>>> with the deployment considerations. Since the hums showed no strong
>>>> opinions one way or the other in the WG, Ian and I have discussed and
>>>> would prefer to see the deployment considerations merged into the existing
>> and adopted IPv6 options document.
>>>> Both documents are short, and readers will benefit from any
>>>> discussion of deployment being available in the same document that
>>>> defines the extension header.
>>>> 
>>>> Please post an update for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options with this
>>>> content added when you have a chance!
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tommy